Philip Coates

Lots, of nice detail, Brant and MSK. I had forgotten most of the details.

> The Intellectual History of Europe, by the Catholic historian Friedrich Heer [GHS] I've read a number of books on the middle ages, and "The Medieval World" by Heer was perhaps the best. On the strength of his (as I remember) ability to write with clarity and to find essentials, I think I'm going to order the above two volume work at Amazon.

Side note: I've known well or had extended conversations with hundreds of Oists in college, grad school, on both coasts and in the middle of the country and at a dozen conferences, and in clubs I've launched or been an officer or or just a member. I'm often highly critical of them or of the 'movement' - whether ortho, conservative, or reform. Part of it is I feel Oists are often too smug, too proud of reading and accepting the system of ideas and people are often hesitant to puncture that -- with the important exception of one-sided or "factional puncturing": 1) The reform wing and tassy-heads and quasi-Oists are very often unrestrained in criticizing Peikoff and the other side. Often unwilling to see any virtues in the other 'clan'. 2)The ortho wing and randroids and ari-heads [not all the same group!] are very often unrestrained in criticizing anyone of the other side, or the non-Oist like libertarians. Often unwilling to see any virtues in the other 'clan'. 3) Both sides are often strangely reluctant to strongly criticize prominent thinkers or tendencies on ~their own side~ (or resentful and suspicious of the motives of "schoomarms" and "attention-seekers" like me who tend to find equal or at least highly fundamental shortcomings on each side.) On the other hand: I'd like to "balance" or put in proportion all my criticism. The Oists (or largely Objectivish) I've met over the years -- whether ARI-leaning or TAS-leaning or pre "schism" or regardless of what side they take on the earlier Rand/Branden issues -- while each has or her own limitations, have usually been morally and intellectually admirable people in the following respects: Highly intelligent. Honest and resourceful and clear-sighted and courageous enough to accept a highly unpopular worldview, knowing full well it would make them pariahs, might kill or hamper some personal or professional relationships. Possessing on the whole, good moral character. And a high degree of idealism in the best sense (not cynics or nihilists). And a subset of them have included many of the most wonderful people I've met.

( I was sort of surprised the first time I heard there were people so literal-minded trying to model themselves after Roark, even adopting his repression. I still wonder if it was that widespread. Maybe NB saw them all the time, but I a decade or so after NBI, certainly didn't meet many randroids or roarkdroids in any pure sense. Just seems like commonsense that you separate the fictional character's "stylized" personality from some of his strengths. And as for being shattered because Rand yelled at you or denigrated your literary choices?....give me a break.)

PDS, no, I've never been an employer and had to pay people. That's also something rare among the Objectivish. They are more likely to be employees (unless they are doctors or lawyers with a small practice). And in many fields they sometimes seem to be too ornery or to lack "group project skills" even for that . . . or to feel more comfortable being free-lancers or contractors or independent consultants as opposed to employees, especially for large corporations. "Would Roark or Rearden work for someone else?" is one excuse.

> I personally don't think reaching Roark's state is in any way desirable. Neither do I. Although, I'd disagree with your statement that he lacks empathy, I've always found his "stoicism" to be wooden. And psychologically inappropriate. The fictional role model who is better at the emotional/introspective dimensions of rationality that Branden lists - and the one worthy of emulation - is Francisco.

No, the idea is that JM was so witty that she would have eviscerated AR and left her corpse in such totally destroyed condition that she could only be identified by dental records.

"Orange Hair Syndrome". Cute. I like that. You may have a point there about which book made an initial deep impression. The theme of Fountainhead centers around independence, while the theme of 'the role of the mind in man's existence' is much wider covering a wider array of issues and attitudes and actions. If someone is too centered just on independence as what it means to be rational, they can turn loner, anti-social, etc. There is somewhere a quote "every loneliness is a pinnacle" which I've always despised and considered dumb. If taken -literally- rather than symbolically or literarily. This all leads to wider questions about whether or not the theme of Atlas is adequately described and what being a 'man of reason' involves. That's a big one and deserves a separate thread.

> If you start using the quote function I'll teach myself how to use the multi-quote--and maybe one-word links. [brant] If you come up with more important advice for others, I'll allow you on your part to be less lazy and make more complete and well-worked out posts instead of just one-liners. Phil returning the good advice favor

Fully being a man or woman of reason means that you are not just a talker but a doer. (It doesn't mean that you are a 'doer' in every area though. There are too many things to do to do them all.)

Subject: getting out of the passive armchair observer state and being constructive Thanks gulch, that is very good advice if people would get off their butts and do it. For my part: I just took your advice, looked up the contact info, sent them a two-paragraph email, included the fact that my area has a large metropolitan area around it and my state is one of the largest in the nation and it's not playing anywhere in my state, and mentioned I'd want to bring my friends. Again, just like my recent comments in the online NYT (and unlike my past work starting campus and community clubs), the amount of work is constructive and only takes minutes. A lot less time than it takes ninth doctor, say, to look up a satirical video and post it to make fun of his inside-the-movement opponents. (I wonder if *a single person on OL* has done either of the two examples I mentioned or their equivalent? Pretty much 'passive armchair intellectual' types, I get the feeling. Talkers more than doers.)

There is also a rule in the NFL rulebook that touchdowns are not to be achieved through prayer. (I distinctly saw God smite down one of the cornerbacks on that play.)

What would you expect?

I've made a couple minor changes in the above post.

FROM POST 1: "Do you see anything wrong with a wealthy candidate influencing an election? What about a wealthy union - spending dues from union members of both parties who are compelled to join? Have you or your newspaper written any front page articles on that? What about spotlighting deep pockets among liberals and the left? Have you written any articles putting George Soros's contributions under a similarly harsh light?" This is shorter than many considerably more 'wordy' comments posted on the Times website. It also jumps quickly from point to point. (1) Why? (2) Will it be effective? (3) Are comments sections read by anyone? (4) Any reason why I didn't also comment on some of the unfair 'sliming' they did on Newt's donor and his business connections? That was in fact the bulk of the article. ANSWERING THOSE FOUR QUESTIONS: (2 & 3: effectiveness/impact) --- Online comments are read for the same reason letters to the editor are read. People are interested in human reactions. Most people like to see a bit of debate and controversy. And the editor and -certainly- the journalist who wrote the story read them. In the case of my comment above, I've gotten seven "thumbs up" from readers so far. You would expect liberal comments on a liberal paper to get the most. Most comments don't get any "likes". (1 & 2: style and effectiveness) --- I can be long-winded in an informal post on OL, but I was deliberately terse here. I don't go into great depth. And I covered most points in one-sentence paragraphs. Several reasons: a) If it took longer than a minute or two to do each, I couldn't write and post many comments. As it is, I frequently make comments in the NYT and I probably spend less than fifteen minutes a week to make three or more comments. b) The points above [in my short comment] are stark, obvious, common-sensical and don't require a lot of 'heavy' explanation or defense. They are questions - which are best posed simply. c) If it's short and "punchy" it is more likely to be read. There are millions of readers of the print NYT and online. Not one of them reads it cover to cover and very few read entire articles. They skim. And the same goes for the comments and letters to the editor. Once someone sees my first 'stark' or challenging question, there's a good chance he may invest time to read four more very short sentences. Especially if he sees he's not going to be wading through dense or academic or latinate paragraphs. People who read newspapers aren't usually looking for heavy scholarship. d) The style of my comment is to raise specific "contrasts" -> if you think this conservative spending is bad, let's see if you're a hypocrite - what about four different examples of liberal spending. Pointing out a contradictory example or reductio ad absurdum or asking challenging questions about the extension of a false principle that is problematic -- these are easy and highly effective ways of puncturing a false position. (4- omitting other issues) --- In a short, punchy comment you want to cause honest adversaries to have to think about, you often have to state something in more than one way. Which means you only have space to effectively drive home ONE point. Thus, I couldn't address in addition the pros and cons of Gingrich; I couldn't also talk about the injustice or sliminess of character-assassinating a man's supporters. I had to -as thoroughly as possible (in five very short challenges) - "kick the liberals in the teeth" on the issue of hypocrisy about campaign finance laws. Bottom line: I'm sure some people on our side of the issue of political freedom will read a pithy challenge like this with a sense of relief that it is possible to punch at least one hole in the conventional liberal view so easily. It doesn't require a Ph.D. or tons of research. And this may motivate some readers to do the same thing in conversation.

A term often used by psychologists for this is peak experiences: "Maslow describes how the peak experience tends to be uplifting and ego-transcending; it releases creative energies; it affirms the meaning and value of existence; it gives a sense of purpose to the individual; it gives a feeling of integration; it leaves a permanent mark on the individual, evidently changing them for the better." [Wikipedia] Lots of stimulating contributions here help me think about my own peak experiences: George mentions being up close with a personal hero (a musician) and a chance to get even with arrogant people who pretend at academic superiority. Michael M. includes a breakthrough in achieving a serious publication in numismatics. Brant mentions toughing it out and successfully graduating from a difficult military school. (ND offered none, instead chose to attack.) For me, like Dennis, a serious romantic relationship with a girlfriend was high on the list, but the one I'll briefly mention here was three weeks long: It was partly cultural but mostly esthetic. Someone had told me that if I liked the sculpture and architecture and painting in Vienna, I'd -love- Florence. He was right. I toured all the great museums and plazas and architecture in Rome and Florence. Nothing remotely like the works of the Renaissance geniuses in the U.S. I had never seen anything like the works of Michelangelo, Donatello, Brunelleschi, and Bernini. It was like being on some radiant planet. You only get a fraction of the power of the Sistine ceiling or the David or the Moses or the Laurentian library staircase from a two-dimensional glossy photo.

> my first serious romantic relationship. When I think of truly happy times in my life, that’s what dominates my thoughts. ..in any case, I just don’t feel I can post it here, for the reasons I stated above. Even so, I like the general idea of this thread so much that I will keep trying to come up with something that I can say—something that, hopefully, isn’t quite so intensely personal. Again, I'm on the same wavelength as Dennis - and I also do like the sharing positive things idea of the thread and would select some less personal things.

> " Work within institutions or crafts, not outside them. For a time, our culture celebrated the rebel and the outsider. The most miserable of my correspondents ...were forever in revolt against the world and ended up sourly achieving little." [David Brooks] One reason so many Objectivism-influened types resist this pretty obvious good advice (and come up with the silly idea that it is the same as being a Keating or social metaphysics or abandoning one's principles to be accepted) is that they had to use Objectivism, the model of Roark's stubborn lonerism, the man against the majority role models to help them in a long personal struggle to assert their own independence and integrity against social pressure. And so the advice to 'get social', find allies, get in good with them sounds to them like a betrayal or abandonment of a source of hard-won pride for them. It isn't the same, if you stop and think about it but it -sounds like- what they had to fight very hard not to succumb to. Or to get out of. For those of us who didn't have that particular struggle** for independence, i wonder if it may be easier to try to 'get along' to 'win friends and influence people' without compromising or betraying our values or beliefs or original ideas. **We probably had other struggles but difficulty under social 'pressure' was not our problem.

ND, seriously, you come across as a stalker who has nothing better to do than to criticize every post I make.

> After reading the original article, my reaction actually was: aren’t there bigger fish to fry, and more fearsome teeth to kick? Actually, the maggot's unadmitted psychology was this: "This is something said by Phil whom I detest. It wouldn't sit well with me if allow it to stand uncriticized, even if his points are valid. Ah, I've got it - it may be true but there are ~more important~ true things to say."

> When I think of the best moments of my own life, however, the memories that come to mind are so intensely precious that I frankly don’t feel inclined to share them here. There are certain OL members who obviously live for the chance to spit on the values of other members. And as little as I care about what such people may think or say, I am not going to give them the chance. My thoughts exactly. (If the maggots didn't do that it would be a different matter.)

I'm more likely to re-study physics with engineering applications than to revisit much math. (Although I expect will tutor both again at some point. ) In fact, I'm doing so right now and have been for a portion of this past year -- I have a *great* physics text that I'm using to refresh things -- usually only a couple hours once a week.

Good point. I didn't learn essentially any of them myself in school at any level and I have a Master's in Math. (Of course, it was Pure Math, not Applied.) Perhaps the only one normally classified in that category was a course on set theory in grad school. Feeling the gap in discrete math and meaty applications after grad school, while sitting in on Peikoff and Rothbard at Brooklyn Poly, since I was already on campus, I took a course on Probability and Statistics. Also, when I was no longer a math student, I had a tiny exposure to Operations Research (simplex method, traveling salesman problem, etc.), but not even a complete course in that area...I seem to recall I browsed a textbook and did some elementary problems. I wish I knew a bit about game theory. The topic in discrete math that I most regret never having been exposed to is: Number Theory. (Fascinating subject, especially issues related to integers such as prime sieves and Fermat's last theorem...I tell myself that someday I may buy an elementary book on number theory and try to work through it.) ,,,,,,,,, Of course as I mentioned before, all that stuff is largely forgotten now; I only remember parts of the more traditional subjects in math --algebra/geometry/calculus/d.e.'s-- because I've tutored them on and off.

> We don't know how many stub-toothed journalists with aching jaws exist among Phil's targets [WSS] 17. > Mr. Adelson, who operates Las Vegas casinos, had no qualms about opening a casino in China. [Mark] > Gingrich..is a big government, crony capitalist [Peter] Neither his supporter nor Mr. Gingrich were at all relevant to the point of my comment -- to point out the double standard, the bias, the hypocrisy of the liberal press or to the point of the thread -- a good and easy way to fight the liberal press thru the public comments sections. Those would be good topics for a thread on politics. This is a thread on tactics and communication and strategies to counter the dominant bad ideas (and bias) in our culture. If you mix all sorts of side topics into a thread, it loses its force.

> This is shorter than many considerably more 'wordy' comments posted on the Times website. It also jumps quickly from point to point. Why? Will it be effective? Are comments sections read by anyone? Any reason why I didn't also comment on some of the unfair 'sliming' they did on Newt's donor and his business connections? That was in fact the bulk of the article. [post 1] I'll try to answer these four questions later.